05/07/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Grenfell Tower disaster looks set to loom large again today,


as we reach the Prime Minister's own deadline for offering


But are Labour MPs right to call for the head


Theresa May has to umpire the argument in the Conservative


Party over public sector pay, but does she have the authority


Grenfell and austerity are both subjects likely to come up


when Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister's Questions,


we'll have all the extended action live at noon.


Yes, I wouldn't argue that that is strictly accurate, no doubt


complimentary and it sounds like a car advert.


We'll be looking at the Conservative MP who's become an unlikely


All that in the next 90 minutes of public service broadcasting


so good you won't even think about turning over


Is Wimbledon on the other channel? I think so. Very well. Bye, bye.


We're trusting you to make the right decision.


And speaking of being second choice, we're joined today


by Westminster's answer to Henman and Rusedski,


minister Steve Baker, and shadow health secretary


So PMQs is just half an hour away, and we're expecting the Prime


Minister to be asked about the response to the Grenfell


Today marks the deadline she gave for ensuring all those affected


are found a new home, and officials say all survivors


of the fire who want to be rehoused have been offered temporary


accommodation, although many are still in hotels.


The Government has also said it will send in a taskforce to take


over parts of Kensington and Chelsea Council,


which has been widely criticised for its response.


There have also been calls at Westminster for the judge leading


the inquiry into the fire, he's called Sir Martin


Labour MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, said Sir Martin


Moore-Bick was "a white, upper middle class man who I suspect


has never visited a tower block housing estate" and should "never


Yesterday Emma Dent Coad, the new Labour MP for Kensington,


called the judge "a technocrat" who lacks "credibility" and said


he should be replaced by "somebody who can understand human beings."


Chris Williamson, Labour's shadow fire services minister


said he had been shown, in previous court cases to "err


on the side of the establishment rather than on the side of ordinary


people" and should be replaced by "a more appropriate" judge.


So what do you think? A technocrat, lacks credibility, somebody with a


human face is needed. What say you? I would say that he should carry on


with the inquiry. He should be allowed to get on with it. There are


clearly concerns from people in the local area and I hope he can move


quickly to allay their concerns, involve them. The residents' groups


have made some suggestions about having a panel to work alongside


him. I hope those suggestions can be taken on board. The key thing now is


not to personalise it around him. The key thing is that the inquiry,


that we get on with it and it is a wider inquiry, looking at all the


issues. Local MPs, I understand why they would speak out in very


passionate terms, given what has happened in the area that they


represent. But I think the key thing now is we let him get on with it.


Chris Williamson, the shadow fire minister is not a local MP, he is on


the Labour front bench. What is it with some of your colleagues? Is


this a class thing? Do they think a judge, wept to Cambridge,


double-barrelled name, sort of accent that most High Court judges


in this country have, do they think he just doesn't understand areas and


the people of Grenfell Tower? I guess that's some of it. I'm from a


working class background. I don't necessarily have a problem with him.


The challenge for him is when he does Is inquiry is that he


demonstrates he knows the concerns of the people of the area and when


he comes up with proper, meaty conclusions but I think the key


thing is to let him get on with it and not personalise it around him. I


don't think that would do justice to anyone. The significance is not that


although one of your shadow ministers has called for him to go,


and the local MP, but Mr Corbyn isn't calling for his resignation?


Jeremy is not. Jeremy quite rightly raised concerns and spoken on behalf


of the residents and taken up some of their points about having an


expert panel and wanting greater involvement and for the inquiry to


be wide enough to look at the broader issues around social


housing. You have to be careful not to make it so wide that it is 2025


before it reports. Quite. You can do inquiries in different ways. You can


have an initial report that looks at the precivic circumstances of the


fire and a wider report that looks at the broader issues, which I think


is the point that Jeremy has been making in recent days.


It would seem that your front bench, you are almost as dysfunctional as


the Tories with different views coming out from everywhere.


Collective Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet collective be responsibility


is a rare breed? I have read the Foreign Secretary saying one thing


and the Environment Secretary. You are making my point. You lot are


doing the same. If I may, I think this is far too important to be used


as a political football. I welcome what Jonathan has said. I would


agree with Jonathan that he should be able to get on with it. We are


consulting the terms of reference of the inquiry and it is right that he


should be allowed to get on. I want him to succeed and as quickly as


possible. Meanwhile the Prime Minister's promise that all those


affected should be rehoused has not been met in the spirit of what we


thought the Prime Minister meant. Some have accepted some


accommodation and many have been offered homes in towers, which could


be frightening or didn't have enough rooms for their families. The Prime


Minister has already apologised earlier for the response. It doesn't


seem to be getting much better. Well to see the tower is to understand


we've had a catastrophe of a kind we could never have foreseen and we


know people have been through hell. It would be wrong to force them out


of hotels and into temporary accommodation. I don't think anybody


is suggesting that. We are suggesting they are offered an


accommodation that given the terrible ordeal they have been


through, They would feel comfortable N they would be able to have their


families with them. Comfortable in. That is what we want to do. We don't


want people to be forced to move twice when it is not what they want


to do. There is new housing coming online, including the Barclay homes


low rise that will become available. If people want to avoid going into


temporary accommodation and going straight into a permanent home we


want to work with them at their pace to put them in the right home. The


money is vale and we're committed to do the right things as we accepted


the initial response was not good enough. Your Government has put in a


task force to take over housing, community relations, regeneration


and various other things, all of which was an implicit criticism of


how the council has handled Grenfell Tower. But it hasn't had the guts


just to put in commissioners and take over from the council. We have


recognised the initial response was not good enough but we need to


correct the problems, recognising it is not likely any council could've


coped with a disaster on this scale, which is why we made the


announcements we did about civil disaster response in the Queen's


Speech but we also do need to try and preserve democracy. I think it


is right we should continue to have a council but given right help...


Without much power where it matters. It is right they should be helped to


cope with an extraordinary, devastating disaster of a category


we never would have expected. Would you put in commissioners? I think we


need to now. Politicians should not easily come to these decisions


overriding local democracy but in these circumstances, the council and


council leadership has failed and radical action like that is needed


now. All right. Thank you both.


Our Guest of the Day, Steve Baker, is now a minister


at the Brexit department, and as a backbencher


He's even been described as one of the five people who made


Let's have a look at him speaking about the EU at an event in 2010.


I think the European Union needs to be wholly torn down.


The thing is, of course, that is actually impractical,


unless the whole people of Europe can be persuaded to rise up and vote


for politicians who are prepared, in a moderate and consistent


and principled and gentle way, to say that the European Union


project has merely succeeded in raising economic nationalism


It was to defeat economic nationalism.


It is therefore a failure in its own terms and if we wish


to devolve power to the lowest possible level, make it accountable


and move on into a free society, then it's clearly incompatible.


Steve Baker that was you in 2010 saying you think the EU should be


wholly torn down. Do you still think that? What I said in that speech, as


you heard, that it was a matter for the electors of Europe. It is a


matter for the electors of Europe. A lot of time have passed in seven


years and many things have happened. One of the things we have seen which


I'm grateful for is the electors of Europe have rejected the nationalist


politicians who are Europe sceptics on the contin and the I'm glad


they've. They've chosen to solve the problems by further incompetent


gracing, for example by electing President Macron. Our duty now is to


negotiate in good faith in our mutual interests to help the


European Union succeed and have a deep and special partnership in our


interests. Do you still think the EU should be torn down? What I think we


need is the European Union to succeed in the interests of all of


its people. What I said in that speech was I wanted free trade,


peace, dispersed political power and democracy. I don't think those


watching this programme will think they are controversial demands. But


thousand do I they can't happen with the EU as it is, you also said it


was an obstacle to world peace and incompatible with a free society N


what Wasilewski or is it an obstacle to world peace? The point I was


making there is when you recognise that economic nationalism causes


conflict, for me it is a bad idea to raise that nationalism to a


continental scale of the the point is we are where we are, the European


Union needs to change, Jean-Claude Juncker has said it is an


exsitential crisis. He has recently - I think today it was reported - he


has told the European Parliament it is ridiculous and threatened to


boycott it. He said that because no-one turned up to hear him speak


in the European Union Parliament. He was with the Maltese President and


they are holding the presidency. If you think the EU is an obstacle to


world peace, were you saying countries like France and Germany


were object if obstacle to world peace? Well I was saying that they


have to... You want it to collapse. It is not in the interests of half a


billion people who live in the European Union. We need to ensure


that the mistakes which undoubtedly have been made, with, for example,


the eurozone, have the opportunity to be corrected, so that all of us


who share common values in Europe are able it go forward in prosperity


together. You have tallen into line with what Theresa May has said, she


wants the EU to be strong and successful and David Davis your boss


is determined to build a strong and special partnership between


ourselves and our European Allies, you are now of course a minister and


agree. Yes, I do. Seven years sore a long time in politics. Well, you


could transform the EU in seven years if you thought it was an


obstacle to world peace and it is no longer is, it is a miraculous turn


around. I have a concern that it causes conflict. I want the European


Union to be more Liberal, have more power dispersed under democratic


control to reform, in other words, happily people agree with me because


you will know that this is a white paper in Europe on European reform


and people will look at to how it should change and return to nation


states. I'm sure they are listening and people might say that


embarrassing that those comments might have been, take your point it


was seven years ago but could it risk the ability to secure good


Brexit terms when you have made the comments about nation states as part


of the EU? Not at all. I'm fully committed to the position the


Government has set out to deliver a successful relationship which we


believe we can achieve and I'm looking forward to doing it in the


interests of not only the UK. But Europe. And you must be pleased that


that Emmanuel Macron think it is can be rejuvenated, and anp opportunity


to be liberated without Britain, to go ahead without the veto constantly


by the UK. It is an extremely good point and one of the reasons why we


needed to come out. We were an impediment to them doing what is


necessary to rescue the economy of the eurozone. I repeat what I said -


I want free trade, peace, prosperity, dispersed power. We all


want those. I'm delightful to discover they are not controversial


comments. We want it make sure the European Union has the best possible


chance of succeeding for the people within it. We are where we are and


that will mean a degree of fiscal centralisation to make it work.


Dominic Cummings said that he thought that the Brexit vote could


have been an error? We have not always agreed and I do not agree on


this occasion. The debate within the Conservative


Party over austerity and public sector pay continues,


we might well hear more about it at And now former Prime Minister,


David Cameron, has weighed in, saying giving up on sound


finances is "selfish". So who has said what on this tricky


question for the Government? JoCo has the Wimbledon-themed


details. I haven't got the racket,


unfortunately! Yes, the Prime Minister has had


a tough job umpiring her party But perhaps she served up the idea


of a change of policy at the Queen's speech,


when she said the Government would "reflect on the message voters


sent" at the election. Her Chancellor Philip Hammond agreed


with her saying we are "not deaf" and he could see that the public


want an end to the "long Mrs May has then seen


a prolonged rally between The Foreign Secretary,


Boris Johnson, "strongly believes" that a public sector pay rise can be


done in a "responsible way" and The Environment Secretary,


Michael Gove, said the Government has "got to listen" to the pay


review bodies, and that he did not believe that taxes would have


to be increased to pay It's thought that Education


Secretary, Justine Greening, and Health Secretary,


Jeremy Hunt, have also appealed for more money


for teachers and health workers. But there have been some


return serves from those Greg Hands, International Trade


Minister, said, "There's no change We must live within our means


and that is the right thing to do." On Tuesday evening the Chancellor


said the Government And keen tennis player


and former PM, David Cameron, said yesterday that "giving up


on sound finances isn't being generous, it's being selfish,


spending money today That's as clear as mud! So, Steve


Baker, which of these positions most accurately described the government


position on public sector pay? You strongly believe our rights can be


given in a responsible way, Boris Johnson, that's something you could


have to consider, Michael Fallon, too soon to let borrowing up, David


Cameron, it would be a mistake to end the pay cap, Ken Clarke, which


is it? The correct position is that the pay review bodies will make


their report and be considered. Bearing in mind the balance between


the desire to give people a fair pay rise and the need to make sure we


continue to have a sound economy. It's not by accident that we have


record employment, the economy is growing and we have been recovering


from the economic calamity that happened during the crash. Do you


believe that arise could be given in a responsible way, as per Boris


Johnson? We could see that people have their quality of life rising


without it affecting the economy. The pay review bodies... They


operate within the guidelines of the government, so they will be


influenced by the framework within which they deliberate. Yes, but we


need to give them an opportunity to report and consider it, rather than


engaging in signalling now. So if the government pay bodies come out


and say, we don't think you should take the cap off, the government


would go along with it? I don't think I should speculate on what


they might say and how people might react. It's a camouflage, isn't it?


It's not up to the pay bodies in the end, it up to the government. And


there are four different opinions at the moment in the government. The


reality is as you well know, we take collective decisions and there will


be a discussion within cabinet, some of which has been in topic, and I


think it should return to private collective Cabinet decision-making.


I want the Cabinet to come to a decision which is responsible and


which balances the need for pay rises with the overall need to


ensure our economy keeps performing and keeps people in work. So how


could you give recent pay rise in the public sector, above the cap,


without adding to the deficit? We need economic growth, that's why...


It slowing down. So that's why we need to make sure we give businesses


the confidence to understand that we are certain where we're going with


our Brexit negotiations... The election was a great help with that.


That result was disappointing for all of us but we need to continue


down the path to deliver the deep and special partnership which will


lead to economic growth for us and the economic union and give us the


opportunity to pivot outwards to the rest of the world where 90% of the


growth will come from by 2020. I think it's important we have a


settled position and trajectory. I'm trying to find out what that


position might be. Finally, before I come to Jonathan Ashworth, it's not


really your decision now, it's a sign of the position the government


is in. There are 40 Tory backbenchers who think that in some


way, the cap has had its day. And given that you haven't got a


majority, the cap has had its day, that's the reality, isn't it?


Conservatives are defined by our commitment to a sound economy in the


public interest. That's one of the central tenets of being a


Conservative. I think conservative MPs will listen to the argument as


they are advanced and prioritise a successful economy in the long term


because there is no kindness in adopting policies which wrecked


people's prospect of employment. Your manifesto talked about 4


billion for public sector workers, but that's nowhere near enough. If


public sector pay merely kept pace with private sector pay in the next


two or three years, and private sector pay is not exactly booming,


if it merely kept pace with that, you would need a lot more than 4


billion according to the ISS. Where would the money come from? --


according to the eye S S. As I understand from the IFS, the way


they did their calculation is different, they are not taking into


account the national insurance contributions. If you can deal with


this public sector pay issue, and that knocks into the wider workforce


issues in the NHS, you should be able to bring the agency bill down.


I heard you at the weekend making this point, the government has saved


600 million on agency fees, it's put a cap on it, that is factored in. We


spent 3.7 billion on agency fees, that's not going to change overnight


even with a pay rise, given the nursing shortage. You will continue


to need to pay to .5 billion in agency fees for the foreseeable


future. You need to find 9 billion by 20 one, 20 two. That's for the


kind of pay rise in the public sector you are talking about. Where


does it come from? Al calculation is art different -- our calculation is


different from the IFS. We are saying that the government does not


need to go forward with the corporation tax changes. That is 4


billion, you need 9 billion. We can test the figure on that. We seek the


government can find it by not going ahead with tax changes. What they


mustn't do, which is what I suspect might happen, is given the chaos


we've got in government, I worry if the government will get rid of the


cap but then say to the NHS, you have to find this extra money from


the existing budget and that will put huge budget pressure on the


wider NHS. What is more important, cabin corporation tax -- cutting


corporation tax or giving a pay rise the public sector workers? Both,


because cutting corporation tax will increase revenues. But that could be


because we are in the seventh year of a recovery and companies have


been making more profit. We don't know that it is directly result of


cutting corporation tax, you could have got more revenue in if you had


not cut it to 19%. Just don't know. It's certainly a matter of dispute


amongst economists but the fact is that we have cut corporation tax and


revenues have gone up and that is the sort of effect we would go to


expect. My point is, at this stage in the business cycle, it could have


been at anyway. It's a matter for debate amongst economists. You


cannot be sure if you cut it by more, it will continue to generate


revenue. We can be sure that if we raise corporation tax, the effect


will be felt by Italy's firms, consumers and it will harm


economies. We need a shrug it will be felt by employees of firms. There


is a lot to pick up there but we need to move on.


Jeremy Hunt wasn't having his best day at the office yesterday.


First the Health Secretary appeared close to the bottom


of the Conservative Home league table showing the popularity


of cabinet ministers among party members,


although he was still better liked than the Chancellor


He then became the latest victim of the snappers of Downing Street,


when he was photographed holding a note


which read read "hard Brexit means people fleeing the UK".


He later said it referred to a potential criticism


that he was expecting from opposition MPs in the Commons.


But we thought there might be more to it than that,


and when we asked the Daily Politics boffins to have a closer look,


Yes, it was a plea from Mr Hunt for what else


Well, I'm sorry Jeremy, it probably would put you up


there in the popularity stakes with David Davis


or Ruth Davidson, but the rules for cabinet ministers are the same


You'll need to enter our guess the year competition,


MUSIC: Baker Street by Gerry Rafferty.


The man stabbed him in the thigh with an umbrella and ran away.


As far as I remember, it went like this.


# I lost my heart to a starship Trooper


The official advice to Britain's housewives was don't panic.


# Don't you know I'll be your substitute #


# Mr Blue Sky, please tell us why you had to hide away for so long #


What do you think about the broadcasting of Parliament?


I think it'll give us a chance to see our


own members actually speaking up for us.


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz email address,


Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.


There's going to be a statement on public sector pay coming up after


Prime Minister's Questions, from Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary of the


Treasury. She will make the statement after PMQs. We do not know


how long it will last but hopefully we will get it in before supper to


night. We like to look at Big Ben, it is glorious summer stay in London


town. Primus 's questions in a few -- prime ministers questions in a


few minutes. We're expecting a kind of statement by the Prime Minister


on rental tower? -- Grenfell Tower? Yes, she has given a lot of updates


at the start of prime ministers questions and I imagine she will do


that. We have seen this morning how Kensington Council has had a task


force sent in on top of other individuals to help them deal with


the aftermath of the tragedy, not exactly taking over the council but


to help them come to use that phrase, with their housing problems,


dealing with those displaced by the fire and the things that surround


that. So the government and other local councils have piled in to help


out Kensington. I guess people watching will say, why wasn't that


done the next day? Why wasn't that done, not for you to answer, but


people will think this was such a national tragedy, so visible as


well, seeing into the public consciousness, that you would just


drop everything and get the resources in to help. A lot of those


people are on the ground in Kensington, trying to get together


some sort of crisis response after the fire with no help from the local


authority. When I was there briefly, people complained about that and


since then we've had the Prime Minister talking about the failures


on the part of the state, Sajid Javid, the communities minister,


saying they had been let down by public policy over decades. There is


no shortage of contrition. What do we expect Mr Corbyn to go on? He has


rich pickings. He does, but we will see to the target, one of them is


Grenfell which transformed itself very quickly into a political


argument after the tragedy and then into a party political argument, and


Jeremy Corbyn's argument was to blame it on austerity and lay the


blame on the Conservative administration. We saw Theresa May


pushback on that. Public pay, Theresa May's response will be


interesting on that, interesting, in quotes, I suggest. I would suggest a


reiteration of Philip Hammond 's line. Maybe Philip Hammond without


his fireworks. You sending our audience to sleep? Philip Hammond


without the fireworks! We have not had the Prime Minister herself say


very much about public sector pay, if she has to say something, I'm


sure she will come it will underline her weakness. She is being buffeted


around by the pressures inside the Tory party in the country as a


whole, and from the Labour opposition. This whole situation


flows not just from weakness but political impotence in number ten.


The leadership in the government has gone missing. We have seen


government ministers ploughing their own furrows at will with no


semblance with what we used to consider cabinet discipline. That


has been interesting. We don't know how it shakes out, they haven't yet


pronounced the public sector pay cap dead but it is a dead policy


walking. It seems to be perfectly clear from where I'm sitting that it


would be politically impossible to carry on with this policy, even


though they might need to do that. Last week saw the 80th anniversary


of the 999 service. I know members will want it join plea paying


tribute to the men and women who work tirelessly saving lives, day-in


and day-out. Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings with


ministerial colleagues and others n addition to my duties in this House,


I shall have further such meetings later. Later this week I will attend


a meeting of the G20 where I'll discuss the global economy,


counter-terrorism and sustainable development with my fellow leaders.


THE SPEAKER: Hannah Bardell. Thank you. Her face smashed with an iPad.


Her body beaten and forced to abort a baby girl. This is only some of


the domestic abuse my constituent, Lola has faced by her estranged


husband because she has refused the genital mutilation of her daughter.


She's ledgicated, has moot and had a good job with RBS until the Home


Office revoked her right to work. I have been writing to the Home Office


since March and got nowhere. So will the Prime Minister now intervene to


stop this family being deported and the three-year-old girl being


subject to female genital mutilation?


I say to the honourable lady that the Home Secretary has obviously


heard the case she set out here today. The issue of female genital


mutilation is one on which I think we are all agreed across this whole


House. It is an abhorrent activity T should not be taking place. Great


efforts have been made over recent years, in terms of strengthening the


law on it but also on getting information out about this issue and


also trying to support people in these communities where there is a


practice of FGM. The message has to go out from this House today - we


will not accept FGM in this country. THE SPEAKER: James Morris. Thank


you, Mr Speaker. Until the last few days, Iraqi security forces assisted


by coalition air strikes have made significant progress in eradicating


Isil fighters from Mosul. This is a significant step forward in the


military conflict against Isil in Iraq. But would the Prime Minister


agree with me that the UK and the United States and abroad


international alliance needs to work with the Iraqi Government to ensure


reconstruction in places like Mosul, as well as working with the Iraqi


Government to make sure that it is sufficiently strong to withstand the


poisonous ideology of the Isil as we seek to defeat it. My honourable


friend is right. In order to keep the streets of Britain safe we must


continue to I a tack Isil in Iraq and Syria. The RAF has conducted


over 1,400 strikes. There are over 500 British soldiers on the ground,


providing further assistance but my honourable friend makes the


important point that it is not just about the military action that takes


place, it is about how we ensure there is sustainable reconstruction


and rebuilding afterwards. Our troops have helped train 55,000


Iraqi security force personnel. We are providing over 169.5 million


pounds in humanitarian aid and a further ?30 million to help Iraq


stabilise these liberated areas. And together we must also work, not just


in Iraq but internationally, to ensure that the hateful ideology of


extremism is not able to poison the minds of people. THE SPEAKER: Jeremy


Corbyn? Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by wishing everyone a happy


Pride month and especially those taking part in the Pride maefrp this


Saturday. We should be aware - the survey taken by Pride in London


found half of LBGT people in London had experienced hate crime in the


past 12 months. I join the Prime Minister in wishing the NHS a very


happy birthday. I was hoping she was going to say a bit more about NHS


staff and their pay during birthday greetings, because after a week of


flip flopping and floundering, we thought we got some clarity from


Downing Street at last. On Monday the announcement was that the public


sector pay cap at 1% remains and a rare moment of agreement between


number 10 and 11 was seen but yesterday we had news that


firefighters are going to be offered 2% this year and 3% next year. So,


account Prime Minister confirm whether the public sector pay cap


will remain for all other public servants until 2020? May I join The


Right Honourable gentlemen in wishing everybody who is going to


take part in Pride London on Saturday an excellent day. I'm sure


it will be a very good occasion as it always has been. Can I also say


that I and all members of this House value the work that is done,


incredibly important work done by our public sector


JEERS And I understand the concerns about


the pay. But for the information of the House perhaps I can set out the


current position. We have had three pay review bodies in the public


sector reporting in March. That covered doctors and dentists, NHS


staff, including nurses and the Armed Forces and the Government


accepted the recommendations in all three of those cases. The


firefighters award is not a matter that is determined by Government, it


is determined by the employers and it is not subject to a pay review


body. There are outstanding pay review body reports. Those cover


teachers, prison officers, police officers and senior salaries and the


Government will consider those reports very carefully and we'll


respond to them. But while we do that, we will always recognise the


need to ensure that we take those decisions, against the need to live


within our means. The right honourable gentleman and I both


value public sector workers and our public services. The difference is,


I know we have to pay for them. Mr Speaker, the public sector pay cap


causes real shortages in nursing and teaching and many other professions,


as well as real hardship. I had a letter last week from a teacher


called David. It's all right, he is a teacher, he is doing a good job,


all right. Inhe says, and I quote, "I've been teaching for ten years. I


have seen my workload increase. I have seen more people leave the


profession than start and no form of pay increase in seven years. The


only thing holding the education system together is the dedication 20


struggle on for their students and staff." And he says, "This


dedication is starting to run out." So what we are doing, by this pay


cap, I say to the Prime Minister, is recklessly exploiting the goodwill


of public servants, like David. They need a pay rise. The Leader of the


Opposition refers to the numbers of nurses and teachers we have working


in the public sector. Of course we now have more nurses in our


hospitals than we had in 2010. More teachers in our schools. But let me


remind the right honourable gentleman of why it has been


necessary for us to exercise restraint in public spending,


including capping public sector pay? It's because we inherited the


biggest deficit in our history... Shouts and jeers SHOUTS


THE SPEAKER: Order. I noticed earlier Mr Mcmood you seem to be in


a hyper condition today. I recommend you take a soothing medicamen, you


will probably feel better. We've acted to bring the deficit down. It


is now down by three-quarters. At the same time, we have seen the


economy grow and we've seen recordlevels of people in


employment. Our policy on public sector pay has always recognised


that we need to balance the need to be fair to public sector workers, to


protect... To protect jobs in the public sector and to be fair to


those who pay for it. That is the balance we need to strike and we


continue to assess that balance. We've had seven years of tax cuts


for the richest and tax breaks for the biggest corporations. And last


year, Mr Speaker, there was a net loss of 1,700 nurses and midwives to


the NHS, and in the first two months of this year alone, 3,264 have left


the profession altogether. Not a great birthday present for the NHS,


is it? Last week the Chancellor said "We all value our public services


and the people who provide them to us." And went on to laud his own


economic record by saying #wed a fundamentally robust economy. Well,


the Prime Minister found ?1 billion to keep her own job, why can't she


find the same amount of money to keep nurses and teachers in their


jobs, who afterall, serve all of us? The right honourable gentleman talks


about the number of nurses. In fact I think some of those figures he was


talking about was the number of nurses who are registered in the


United Kingdom. There are about 600,000 nurses registered in the UK.


About half of them, 300,000 work in the NHS in England. And contrary to


what he says, we have 13,000 more nurses working in the NHS today than


compared to 20 o 10. SHOUTS But ginned stand that it has been


hard for people who have been working hard and making sacrifices,


over the years, as we have been dealing with Labour's mismanagement


of the economy. But let me just... Let me remind the right honourable


gentleman of what happens when you don't deal with the deficit? It's


not a theoretical issue, let's look at those countries that fail to deal


with it? In Greece, where they haven't dealt with the deficit...


Yes... SHOUTS AND JEERS What did we see?


Spending on the health service cut by 36%. Thatp doesn't help nurses or


patients. I hope the Prime Minister's proud of her record of


controlling public sector pay to the extent that hard-working nurses have


to access food banks in order to survive. And the frozen wages of


teaching assistants, par meddies and council workers. But, Mr Speaker, it


not -- paramedics. But across the economy wages are


rising by 2.1% while inflation is nearly 3%. 6 million workers already


earn less than the living wage. What does the Prime Minister think that


tells us about seven years of a Conservative Government, and what


it's done to the living standards of those people on whom we all rely to


get our public services, our health services, delivered to us? I'll tell


the right honourable gentleman what has happened over the last seven


years, we see record numbers of people in employment. Nearly 3


million more people in work. We have seen the introduction of the


national living wage - never done by Labour. Done by a Conservative


Government. And we've seen 4 million people taken out of paying income


tax altogether. And a cut in income tax and a change in the personal


allowance which is the equivalent of ?1,000 to basic rate tax payers,


including nurses. That's the record of good management of the economy.


You only get it with a Conservative. Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime


Minister simply doesn't get it. SHOUTS AND JEERING.


There is, Mr Speaker,... We've got plenty of time, I'm quite happy to


go for a lot of time. People should try to calm themselves and give a


moments thought as to whether they'd like to be viewed by their


constituents shrieking their heads off, it's very down-market. Mr


Speaker, there is a low pay at the panic in this country. And it has a


terrible -- P epidemic in this country and it has a terrible effect


on young people. Those in their 20s will earn less than a generation


don't before them. The first generation to be worse off than the


last. They are less likely to be able to buy their own home, more


likely to be saddled with debt, more likely to be in insecure, low-paid


work. Except for more misery, what does the Prime Minister and her


government actually offer for the young people of this country?


THE SPEAKER: Prime Minister. Yes, to echo those colleagues, what


we offer young people is more jobs, more homes, and opportunity to own


their own home. But let me just, let me just tell the Right Honourable


gentleman what isn't fair. It isn't fair to refuse to take tough to


sessions and to load debts on our children and grandchildren in the


future. It isn't, it isn't fair to bankrupt our economy because that


leads to people losing their jobs and losing their homes. And it isn't


fair to go out and tell people that they can have all the public


spending they want without paying for it. Labour's away leads to fewer


jobs, higher prices, more taxes and Labour's way means everyone pays the


price of labour. Mr Speaker, when Tories talk of tough choices, we


know who suffers, it's the poorest and most vulnerable within our


society. Young people, Mr Speaker, in Clwyd on zero hours contracts,


are more likely to have -- employed on zero hours contracts, are more


likely to have worse physical and mental health. University students


who have graduated with ?50,000 worth of debt which will stay with


them until they retire. Mr Speaker, let me spell it out to the Prime


Minister. This is the only country in which wages have not recovered


since the global financial crash. More people are using food banks. 4


million children living in poverty. Record in work. Poverty. Young


people who see no prospect of owning their own home and 6 million earning


less than the living way. The low Payet Adamic is a threat to our


economic stability. -- the low Payet Adamic. So can she take some tough


choices and instead of offering platitudes, offer some real help for


those in work, young people who deserve better and deserve to be


given more optimism rather than greater inequality? We actually now


see the proportion of people in absolute poverty is at record lows.


He asks for help for those who low-paid. I'll tell him the help


that we have given, we introduced the mandatory national living wage,


the lowest earners fastest pay rise in 20 years. We have cut taxes for


those on the basic rate. We are doing what is important for this


country which is insuring there are jobs and an economy which provides


jobs, which is the best route out of poverty, being in work. And I know,


I know that the right honourable gentleman has taken to calling


himself a government in waiting. Well, we all know what that means.


Waiting to put up taxes, waiting to destroy jobs, waiting to bankrupt


our country, we will never let it happen.


CHEERING I understand the House is excited


about hearing the right honourable member, Nicky Morgan.


I know that the Prime Minister and her ministers and many other members


of the House are committed to better mental health care for everyone. I'm


a founder of the Loughborough well-being project and I recently


visited an eating disorder service in Leicester. As a result of the


Rodman's careful financial management, 1.4 billion more is


going into mental health services. How can she insure that this goes


into the service is consistently? May I commend her on her work in


this project and I'm happy to join her in paying tribute to the work of


the eating disorder service in Leicester. As she says, they do


incredibly important work and we must do more to transform the mental


health services that we provide for young people, but also mental health


generally. That's why, as she says, we are putting more money into


mental health and it will reach a record 11.6 billion, it reached that


last year. That funding, we need to make sure it gets through to the


front line, we are working to ensure that people and staff in schools are


trained to better identify and deal with mental health problems when


they are present with children. I saw that when I visited a school in


Bristol last week, excellent work being done, improving the quality of


services for young people with mental health. In Blackford. As we


meet here today, the funeral is taking place in Dundee for the


former leader of the Scottish National Party and member of


Parliament for Dundee East from 1974 to 1987, I'm sure the House would


like to join with me in commemorating the life and


contribution to politics of the late, dearly missed friend and


colleague, Gordon Wilson. Mr Speaker, the UK Government has not


announced any measures to address rising inflation and slamming wage


growth which the eye S S has described as dreadful. -- which the


IFS has destroyed as dreadful. As workers endure the worst pay for 70


years, does the Prime Minister think she is looking out for the just


about managing? Can I first of all say to the honourable gentleman as I


did last week, I am sure all members of the House would like to offer our


condolences to the friends, families and colleagues of the late Gordon


Wilson but also to recognise the role he played in politics in the UK


including in this house. And I say to the honourable gentleman, as I


have said to the Leader of the Opposition, what is important is


that we ensure that we have an economy which is increasing the


number of jobs because the best route out of poverty is for people


to be in work. That is what we are doing. We've seen nearly 3 million


more jobs being created over recent years. That's important for people.


We also help people, for example, by cutting taxes, it's what we've done


for people who are you lower paid, introducing the national living


wage, that is what people need. It is the forecast in the rise in work


poverty which should concern us, particularly the increase of young


people in poverty. Since the general election in 2010, the FTSE 100 has


risen by 39.6%. Monetary policy, not least quantitative easing, has


helped drive up financial assets while workers have paid the price


for austerity. Workers will earn no more in 2021 than they did in 2008.


Will the Prime Minister give workers a pay rise? I would have thought


that particularly with his background, he would have recognised


the role that the monetary policy including quantitative easing has


done in ensuring that we at able to see those jobs in the enquiry --


economy which are so important. Can my right honourable friend tell me


what steps the government is taking to drive value for money and


efficiency in the aid budget to ensure taxpayer money is used to


promote global peace and security in the national interest? Can I say to


my honourable friend that I am proud that the government is committed to


honouring our international commitment on aid, that is important


for this country. This money is saving lives, building a more stable


and prosperous world, that's firmly in our UK national interest but of


course, but he's absolutely right, we need to make sure the money we


are spending is being spent utterly and efficiently. The international


developer and secretary, I can assure him, is driving value for


money and efficiency in the aid budget, focusing on greater


transparency, boosting payment by results and driving value for money


as well. We set up in 2011 and independent aid watchdog together


with stronger controls in DfiD. It's important we are committed to this


money but it is also important that it is spelt well. My young


constituent paid ?300 house reservation fee to an estate agent


their landlord clients -- grow which they will not refund after they


refused to honour the contract after the landlord pulled out. When will


the Prime Minister act and put an end to these rip-off fees and stop


these agents capitalising on young people and others? We have made


reference in the Queen's speech to what we're doing in this area, we


recognise the issues. He says when, but he will recognise in the House


that we need to ensure that anything we bring forward in legislative


terms get right, so it's going to work. We recognise the problem and


we are going to do something about it. In 2008, I brought forward an


amendment to the animal welfare act that would have extended the


sentences for cruelty to animals from weeks to years. Will my right


honourable friend look and see what can be done to ensure that people


who are deliberately and wilfully cruel to animals are punished far


more severely? I'm grateful to my honourable friend for raising this


issue and we all share a high regard for animal welfare, the importance


of having strict laws in place to ensure that we deal with people


properly who are not looking after animals. And anyone who is cruel to


an animal doesn't provide for welfare needs may be and from --


banned from owning animals, given a fine sent to prison. We are in


discussion with the Ministry of Justice regularly in remission to


the sentencing policy for animal welfare. With this awful service


reportedly having to explain in crayon to the -- with the civil


service reportedly having to explain in crayon to the Cabinet that there


is now know have your cake and eat it option for Brexit, will she


admits she is prioritising her own red lines? He will have heard the


answer before. We want to negotiate the best possible answer for the


United Kingdom which ensures we have a comprehensive free trade


agreement, we can trade with our partners, we have a deep and special


partnership with the European Union, that we ensure that we are growing


our economy but it's not just about our relationship with the European


Union, it's about trade deals that we will do with countries around the


rest of the world. And it's about ensuring sound management


conservative government. Commissioners have highlighted to me


the valuable contribution that retired police Sergeant and now


special constable Ross Hall has made to maritime policing. Does my right


honourable friend believe that joined up working with other


agencies is essential and can make a positive contribution to beating


crime in our small harbours? And helps protect our borders? Can I


join my honourable friend in recognising the contribution that


special contribution Ross Hall has made in her constituency, and she


makes an important point. When I was Home Secretary, I brought various


agencies together to look at just this issue of how we deal with


protecting our borders. That joined up working can make a real and


positive contribution. As she will know, of course, what matters is not


just how we do that but ensuring that we're having an impact but as


she will know, crime has fallen by a third since 20 ten to eight record


low. -- 2010 to a record low. Thank you for advising me on my blood


pressure, when I go to my consultant on Monday, he will give me the same


advice. My blood pressure rises because when I go and see those


nurses in those hospitals, overstretched, overworked and


underpaid and having to use food banks, she pays lip service and does


not look at the pace sector gap and does not reduce it. Listen to the


plea of those nurses and do something about the pace sector cap.


I have set out the position to the Leader of the sop significance when


he spoke earlier. -- Leader of the Opposition. And for nurses there is


the overall public sector pay increase but also many nurses


receive increments or progression pay. And for a typical band 5 nurse,


they'll be receiving 3.8% over and above the 1%. It is a strong economy


that power this is Government's investment in the NHS and it is a


strong economy that is allowing this Government to create 1,500 new


medical school places and new medical schools. Does the Prime


Minister agree with me that Lincolnshire makes a new case for a


new medical school in this great county? My honourable friend makes


an important point. We can only pay for public services with a strong


economy. And as he said we are going to train 1,500 more doctors every


year to ensure the NHS has enough doctors to continue providing a


safe, compassionate care we all want to see. We are looking at the


question of how to allocate the places and will publish their


consultation response. They are also looking at the possibility of new


and aspiring medical schools bidding for these places and I'm sure that


as my honourable friend has always been a champion for his constituents


and constituency, he will continue to make an excellent case for Lynne


coreshire. On Saturday the Shadow Chancellor and I joined staff from


picture house cinemas outside the Ritzy in Brixton who are striking


because their employer reus foos to pay the London living wage and has


outrageously stacked their trade union representatives. Will the


Prime Minister join me on calling of Picture House cinema who made a


profit last year of ?18 million to pay their staff the London living


wage and to rein-Tait their local res madly -- reinstate. It is about


a relationship between employers and their employees. What I say to her


overall is the importance of Government taking the right


decisions to ensure we can - excuse me - taking right decisions to


ensure that growing the economy and providing those jobs for people in


the first place. Tait THE SPEAKER: Andrew Bowie. Thank you Mr Speaker,


I would to thank the Prime Minister for taking time during the general


election to come up to campaign in my constituency where I think we did


rather well. I would like to ask if she agrees with me that it is


utterly shameful that the Scottish Government have for the second year


in a reh to go pleading to the European Commission for an extension


to the farm payment deadline, and is this not proof, if further proof


were needed that the SNP are failing rural Scotland? THE SPEAKER: Order.


We're fascinated to hear the answer, I should just say although I'm


interested to hear the answer and we will, the Prime Minister is not


responsible for the Scottish Government. Prime Minister. Can I


first of all welcome my honourable friend to his place in this House


and I very much enjoyed my visit to his constituency during the election


campaign. But what he says is absolutely right because time and


again, in this Chamber, Mr Speaker, we hear the Scottish Nationalists


demanding more powers for Scotland. Yet what do we see? They are failing


to deliver for the Scottish people on the powers they already have. Yet


again Scottish schools are now outperformed in every category by


schools in England, Northern Ireland, Estonia and Poland. Powers


are kept in Edinburgh rather than being devolved to local people and


as my honourable friend says, yet again we see farmers waiting months


for their subsidy payments. The simple fact is that the SNP's


qualities are not in the best interests of the people of Scotland.


THE SPEAKER: Order. I say to the honourable gentleman the member for


Glasgow South who persists in gesticulating in an eccentric


matter, he seems discome bob lighted from the world he inhabits. It is an


unhappy state of affairs. The southern rail dispute is causing


real damage to the economy of Eastbourne and South East. My


constituents have had a shocking time with the services provide the


or not for the last 1 months. This shrimp cannot go on. With the Prime


Minister enlighten me, my constituents and the House, why the


Department for Transport and the train operator will not meet with


the unions at the same time in the same room, together, to negotiate a


deal? I recognise the problems that have been experienced by passengers


on southern rail, this is a matter that has been raised by a number of


my colleagues in the House, including my honourable friend the


member for Lewes who raised it last weevenlingt I'm very disappointed


that they have called more industrial action. It is completely


unnecessary. All it will do is cause more disruption and frustration for


passengers. The recent independent report says the main cause of


widespread disruption on Southern has been union action. So, I would


urge the unions to call off these strikes, work with the operators and


deliver the services the passengers need. THE SPEAKER: Alex Burghart.


Businesses across my constituency will be cock ahoop to hear that


their calls for better broadband are being answer bid the digital


infrastructure investment fund. Which is going to unlock about ?1


billion for full fibre service. It is going to help them create jobs,


particularly in rural areas. Will the Prime Minister agree with me


that this is exactly the sort of infrastructure spend we need to get


our country Brexit-ready? My honourable friend makes a very


important point. And wear already a digital world leader and we're


committed to making sure this unremains so. We already see 93% of


the UK accessing superfast broadband and we are on track to reach 95% by


the end of the year but we do want to see more commercial investment in


the gold standard connectivity full fibre provides and this is' why


we've launched this digital infrastructure investment fund


accompanies aaround the UK will be able to apply for match funding for


projects which would see fibre delivered right to the doorstep.


Yesterday we also announced 100% business rate relief for businesses


rolling out new fibre. This is important. We want to continue to be


woorld leader and these are the actions Government are taking in


making sure we will be. Police officer numbers in Wales have


dropped by 10% since her party came to power. The policing is devolved


in Northern Ireland and Scotland and have xrap funding worth ?25 million


at their disposal. This would more than replace those lost officers.


What justification is there for refusing to want to devolve


policing? We have been around this discussion before but can I address


the central issue of what the honourable lady is talking about,


police budgets and the number of police officers. We are currently


protecting police budgets. We have been doing that since 2015. That I


believe is acknowledged across the House. And we have we are not


protecting the police budgets but ensuring the police need the cape


acts they need to deal with new types of crime, creating the


national cybercrime unit and national police agency and this is


why what we are doing to cut crime and crime is at a record low. THE


SPEAKER: Scott Mann. Can I thank the Prime Minister for introducing the


trade and fishery Brexit bill in the Queen's Speech. It'll be welcome in


the West Country however we are facing significant challenges with


rural Post Office network and the trands flings some branches from


community branches to community village stores and community


buildings. Some of those moves have been smooth and some haven't. Can I


ask her to take a look at this and see if there is anything more the


Government can do to help my constituents? My honourable friend


again raises an important point and it is right we should recognise the


role played in communities by rural Post Offices and rural Post Offices


in places like Campbell Ford and in his constituency but in the


constituencies of other honourable members. We've invested in the


network up to 2018. It is at its most stable for decades but he is


right, I would urge the Post Office to help to make it as easy as


possible for shops who want it take over postal services to be able to


do so. . THE SPEAKER: Diana Johnston. Mrnchts speaker, 2,400


people have died as a result of the NHS contaminated blood scandal. More


than Hillsborough and all the other disasters over the previous few


decades put together. With the excel effort that the former right


honourable member for Leigh presented to Parliament on April


25th of a criminal cover-up of an industrial scale, will the Prime


Minister now do the right thing and order a public inquiry for the whole


of the United Kingdom? The honourable lady raises an important


issue. I know the thoughts of members of the House will be with


all of those who've been affected by this terrible tragedy in relation to


contaminated blood. Serious allegations have been made and I


would say obviously information that has been brought forward to the


House will be looked at bhinsteres at the Department of Health but if


any honourable member has further information or evidence they believe


would be important that should go to ministers, so they can properly


investigate T we are providing more compensation than any previous


Government and committed ?125 million of extra funding for those


affected for the contaminated blood tragedy last July. But the


Department of Health will look at any new evidence that is brought


forward. Mr Speaker, rather than celebrating the NHS, the party


opposite rather shamelessly have tried to weaponise the NHS with the


political campaigning tools. Will the Prime Minister assure me that


services like the 999 service will be decided upon, based on clinical


decision, not those of politicians that are trying to weaponise our


public services? My honourable friend is absolutely right. In


relation to the services that are provided by the NHS, it is so


important that decisions are taken on a clinical basis by those who


understand the needs and requirements of people and in


different areas. And that's why we have set up NHS England which has a


plan for developing services in the NHS, over a five-year period. It's


important that politicians allow clinicians and others in the NHS to


make the decisions they need to. I'm thinking of my constituents Konnie


and Chris Guard and Charlie at this difficult time. It's clear that if


Charlie remains in the UK there is no further treatment available and


that life support will be switched off. There are differing views about


the charges of the by pass therapy that other children, albeit with


less swear forms of Charlie's condition have benefited from. I


understand the chances of improvement for Charlie are low but


that doctors would be able to say within three months whether Charlie


is responding and whether the change is clinically beneficial. If there


is any room for discretion within the court ruling for Great Ormond


Street to allow Charlie to leave and to transfer his care to doctors at


Columbia University and he is sufficiently stable to receive


treatment, would the Prime Minister do all she can to bring the


appropriate people together to try to make this happen? Can I first of


all say to the honourable lady she is right to raise the concerns of


her constituents in this matter and I'm sure the thoughts of all members


of the House are with the familiar lane Charlie at this exceptionally


difficult time. It's an unimaginable position for anybody to be in and I


fully understand and appreciate that any parent in these circumstances


would want to do everything possible and explore every option for their


seriously illchild but I also know that no doctor ever wants to be


placed in the terrible position where they have to make such


heart-breaking decisions. The honourable lady referred to the fact


that we have the court process here. I'm confident Great Ormond Street


hospital have and always will consider any offers or new


information that has come forward with the consideration of the


well-being of a desperately ill child. Mr Speaker, when the Prime


Minister and I left our comprehensive schools to go to


university, we entered into a privileged elite. Can my right


honourable friend confirm that as a result of a tuition fee, introduced


by Labour, improved by the coalition, there are now more young


people from working class and poor backgrounds staying at university


than ever before, because come people say it is fewer. Are they


right or are they wrong? I'm very happy to join my honourable friend


in relation to this issue. Issue in recognising she and I went to


comprehensive schools and universities at a time when the


number of people going to university was significantly lower than it is


today. And I'm also grateful to her for reminding the House that


actually it was the Labour Party that says they would not introduce


tuition fees and when they got into Government introduce tuition fees.


But what we are seeing - what we are seeing under the current... What we


are seeing under the current system is more young people than ever going


to university, and crucially, to address the point she raised,


disadvantaged 18-year-olds are 40% o % more line e likely to go to


university now than they were in 2009.


The Prime Minister herself commissioned ship Jones to the port


on the Hillsborough families. Even -- given what is before us that the


state still does not know how to deal with the victims of tragedy,


will she give me the date on when this report will be published? I


have not seen the report yet and I cannot give her a date, but she


raises an important point. The reason why I asked Bishop James


Chester undertake this work was because I was concerned about the


ways the bereaved families at Hillsborough had been treated over


far too many years and we have seen the result of the CPS decisions last


week. This is why we have committed, in the Queen's speech, to


introducing an independent and public advocate who will be able to


act on the behalf of bereaved families in cases of public


disaster, because I think it is important that they are able to have


that support alongside them. Too many families just have too, as we


have seen in Hillsborough, have two over many years fight to get justice


will stop I want to ensure they have help and support in doing that.


Given the government's record in freezing fuel duty, will she resist


recent calls to raise the duty because it hurts the lowest paid the


most? Will she do every thing possible to make sure that when the


international oil price falls, this is reflected properly at the pumps


so that we can have a Britain that works for every motorist? Can I


first of all commend my honourable friend who has been championing this


issue for all the years that he has been in the House. And the work that


he has done as a great campaigner on this and other issues has been


recognised in changes the government has made. I'm pleased that we have


been able to do what we've done in relation to holding down the issue


on fuel duty, he struggled to tempt me down a path which I will not go


down because he knows decisions at these matters are time of fiscal


events. It comes to an end after 47 minutes,


last week was not an aberration, if you thought it was, you have been


proved wrong. It looks like the speaker is planning to run the PMQs


for 45 minutes. The exchanges between the front benches, it was


like the campaign had not ended. Mr Corbyn making much of the themes he


used in their campaign, public sector pay, the need to pay teachers


and nurses more and so on. The Prime Minister fighting back saying she is


followed three pay review bodies, she's for more to come in, we need


to live within our means. It did not get so far but it was an echo of the


campaign. One difference, Theresa May made quite a spirited defence of


the government's economic record since 2010, which is something she


didn't do during the election campaign. That was interesting. We


will see where we are in a moment with our panel. But what did the


viewers say? Still the same untruths from the Tories on pay in economy, a


rise is needed now. But this one, Theresa May seemed to be on form


today, her backbenchers hacking her all the way, Mr Corbyn cannot think


on his feet and catch the Prime Minister on God. This one, Corbyn is


back to his letter from able routine, it doesn't work, the brain


is back and Theresa May is still shrill when rattled. And this tweet,


has Theresa May ever defended the economic record of the Tories as


vigorously as this? Might get her a positive editorial in the standard.


To which George Osborne treated, a smiley face. Is that good? Does it


apply Kim? I can't tell. -- does it look like him? And we had the first


MP not wearing a tie and asking a question, a pink shirt and a nice


fitted collar, that started a trend. I am not sure that this will buy to


reset may credit with George Osborne's Usher could Theresa May's


credit with George Osborne's standard, but she looked more


relaxed and comfortable as she has been since her decline. The reasons


are discoverable, maybe the pressure is off now that she has fallen as


far as she has. It makes it easier to be yourself. In question Time, we


saw her try her best to hold the line on public sector pay,


reiterating the policy. In the course of doing that, she expressed


that the public pay review bodies will be read carefully and their


recommendations would be studied and acted upon, or not, as the case


would be. The sponsoring ministers of the pay review bodies have given


a green light to those bodies to go ahead and bust the 1% pay cut if


they want to do it. It would be quite difficult not to do that now.


We know that is their natural inclination because they have been


building up to this for a couple of years. We're we are to begin with,


in my view, a political impossibility of hanging onto a


public sector pay cap when sponsoring ministers and others say,


it is the time to breach the cat. When the government says they have


listen to the electorate, how do you then say, we have decided to ignore


that message that we said we were listening to carefully? And when


you've got enough MPs and more on the Tory side to stage a big enough


rebellion to bring it down, even the government would be minded to dig


its heels in. The deficit was just under 50 billion in the last


financial year, it's rising this year for some technical reasons, it


will be over 50 billion. Does it no longer matter? The deficit does


matter which is why all our policies in the general election campaign


were accosted. You may disagree with them. No one agreed with them. No


experts no expert body agreed with your tax revenue projections. We put


forward I costed manifesto. You say that but by constituents didn't


believe it. The key thing is it is up for ministers to set the rebid


for these bodies for public pay, you say he's given them the green light,


it is he in the instruction he's given them, actually going to say,


do not impose a cap? That's the question that the government has not


answered. How could he do that? He could not. He could say, take into


account the new inflation levels. That's what's made the pay cut such


an important issue. When the cap was introduced, inflation was close to


zero. If you've only got 1%, not much but in real terms, you get a


little rise. You would hardly notice it but you get a little rise. Now


with a 1% pay cap, you get it cut in real terms. It's difficult to


sustain the claim that the inflation target is symmetrical which is what


the governor of the Bank of England was insisted on when inflation was


near zero. The reality is that positive inflation creates these


pressures. We need to keep inflation under control. We will see a one off


through the referendum change in the currency level will wash through,


and I think we will see inflation stabilise after that. A pay rise in


the public sector of 2.5% wouldn't be inflationary, would it? 2% sounds


like a small number but when you run to the figures, it would be very


expensive. Why did the Prime Minister use grease as an example of


a country who had not tackled its deficit? But Greece has been in


notorious difficulties. What is its deficit, and why would she raise it


if she used it as an example? We seen that in Greece, where taxes


haven't been paid and where the government has lived beyond its


means, the consequence of running up too much debt has been profound. She


wasn't talking about debt, she was talking about the deficit, a


different thing, Greece doesn't have address it, it ran a budget surplus


last year. What are our deficit as a percentage of GDP? It is just 3%. It


is just under, we are just under 3% and Greece is running a surplus, why


would you raise that? Greece is an example of where excess in debt is


leading to public service is being in trouble. That's not what the


Prime Minister was talking about, she was saying it had not got on top


of its deficit and that is not what the figures say. The political thing


which was interesting is that the Prime Minister 's got a lot of


support from the backbenches, and that is I suggest because they know


she is living on borrowed time but she'll go at a time of their


choosing. So for the moment, they're going to rally behind her until they


choose that she doesn't stay there any more. I think that's precisely


right. The Conservative backbench at question time now are like spear


carriers in this experience drummer, they say nothing until the queue


comes to cheer. -- in a Shakespearean drama. The job for now


is to stay there and she will achieve that until the recess. We


have to exit now. A Shakespearean exit from the stage.


We've talked before about Corbynmania and the huge


support for the Labour leader on social media.


He's not the first politician to get an online following.


You might remember the somewhat smaller Milifandom that


sprang up around former Labour leader Ed Miliband.


But this week it's been suggested that there's a new unlikely


What greater pleasure can there be for a true born Englishman


or true born Englishwoman, to listen to our own


Mr Speaker, or my right honourable friend the member for Buckingham,


as he now is, has a reputation for being a moderniser.


This is the word I use with some caution.


Can we indulge in the floxinoxinihilipilification


There are times when a nation needs a hero.


Now might not be one of those times, but there seems to be loads


of people at the moment who just really love Jacob Rees-Mogg.


Maybe it's because he himself posts to social media.


Maybe because he's had such a strong and youthful


And maybe it's because he seems to have cross-party support.


Whatever it is, The Rees-Mogg has inspired a generation


of Photoshoppers and meme creaters on the Internet.


So much so that someone even interviewed him about what he thinks


of these memes and that's been really popular.


I always think it's important to sit comfortably in the chamber,


particularly when you're in there for a long time.


There's even a campaign to make him PM.


What is it about Rees-Mogg that you love so much?


I think it's because he's a little bit eccentric.


He doesn't take themselves so seriously.


So how many people have signed up for the campaign?


So we have just over 12,000 signatures so far.


Yeah, it is, I've got to say I'm actually surprised that we've got


this big in such a short period of time.


His support isn't just the grassroots of his power base


But as his local paper once said, he's got Mogg-mentum.


So, is their love for him in the studio? Absolutely massive love for


Jake, we are all fans. As leader? Who knows what happens with due


course. We need to guess the year, it is 1978. So, Minister, hit that


red buzzer. Brexit negotiations are over! Here is the winner.


Congratulations, it is 1978. One o'clock News is starting on BBC One,


I will be back at the earlier time of 11am tomorrow because of


Wimbledon, on BBC Two. Hope to see you then.


Download Subtitles